CA measure would ban anonymous online speech for sex offenders

If there's anything everyone can agree about, it's that sexual exploitation of minors is wrong. Proposition 35, on the ballot in California for Tuesday's election, would take a number of steps to crack down on sex offenders. It would increase penalties for crimes related to both child and adult prostitution, fund support services for victims of these crimes, and require law enforcement officials to receive additional training on the topic.

A less-noticed provision of the proposal would effectively ban registered sex offenders from engaging in anonymous speech online. If the proposition passes, sex offenders would be required to notify local law enforcement agencies every time they signed up for a new Internet Service Provider or acquired a new "Internet identifier." That is defined as "an electronic mail address, user name, screen name, or similar identifier used for the purpose of Internet forum discussions, Internet chat room discussions, instant messaging, social networking, or similar Internet communication."

The provision has raised the ire of civil liberties groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "EFF opposes this proposition because it would create new restrictions on online speech and increased government surveillance of the online accounts for a class of individuals, creating a dangerous legislative model for policing unpopular groups in the future," wrote staffer Rainey Reitman in a Sunday blog post. "While we share concerns about human trafficking and want to make sure the law is as effective as possible, we believe that censorship and increased surveillance of an entire class of people is not the right legislative fix for this troubling problem."

Francisco Lobaco, legislative director for the ACLU of California, agrees. Speaking earlier this year, he warned that "a person who is convicted decades ago of a relatively minor sex offense, such as indecent exposure, or a crime that has absolutely nothing to do with either children or the use of the Internet, must now inform the police of any name he or she uses in any sort of online discussion group." That, he suggested, would infringe on the First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

We asked supporters of Proposition 35 to respond to the EFF and ACLU's critique, but they have not responded to our e-mail. A "fact sheet" on the pro-35 website states that "the prevalence and anonymity of the internet has fueled the rapid growth of sex trafficking, making the trade of women and children easier than ever before."

EFF and the ACLU aren't the measure's only critics. A scathing editorial by the Los Angeles Times argued California's legislature has already been working on the human trafficking problem since 2005. The legislature passed a law that "has been fine-tuned more than a dozen times over the last seven years as experience was gained, people were prosecuted and legal holes were discovered and plugged." Proposition 35 would "subvert that work," the paper said, calling Prop 35 "poorly drafted."

Also opposed is the Sacramento Bee, which worries that the online notification rules will "impose a costly and burdensome requirement on local law enforcement agencies" that will be forced to manage information submitted by sex offenders about their online identities.

But the proposal has won the support of the San Francisco Chronicle, which specifically praises the Internet-related provisions. "Once this information reaches the sex-offender registry, it's only a matter of time until a tech entrepreneur comes up with an app that would allow Californians to automatically block online entreaties from convicted sex offenders," the paper's editorial board predicts.

The supporters of Prop. 35 are likely to get their way. A poll taken in October by the California Business Roundtable found that 78 percent of likely voters support the measure.

Wow, more idiotic legislation that nobody has the balls to say no to because of a brainless "tough on crime" mentality. Not only would the benefits of this legislation be extremely questionable, but the downside is extreme: trampling on one of people's most fundamental rights.

Proposition 35...another of the laws that should be combined under a new Constitutional amendment, the "...But Just Think of the Children" Amendment. A new law that allows us to violate a citizen's normal legal rights because, like, come on dude, just think of the children.

Wow, more idiotic legislation that nobody has the balls to say no to because of a brainless "tough on crime" mentality. Not only would the benefits of this legislation be extremely questionable, but the downside is extreme: trampling on one of people's most fundamental rights.

These rights are only deserved by law abiding citizens, not criminals. As a convicted criminal you give up certain rights, such as freedom and speech. The only thing idiotic here is the method they want to use.

Try again. You don't lose the right to freedom of speech as a convicted felon. There are only a few states that practice felony disenfranchisement (loss of the right to vote) and the right to bear arms can be restored in many states. That has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

It's a ballot proposition. They're the bane of California. Almost all are universally ill-concieved or outright deceptive about whose interests they really represent.

The "sex offender" label is a lifelong brand that can be quite ridiculously applied. In California, prostitutes can be labeled as sex offenders, even though they're almost always victims human trafficking. Instead of working to save them, the system actually makes their lives harder and makes it impossible for them to ever escape their past.

What better way to ensure a complete rehabilitation of an offender than by truncating every conceivable right they could ever have and marginalizing them to the furthest outskirts of society? Can't really see a way for this one to backfire.

"Once this information reaches the sex-offender registry, it's only a matter of time until a tech entrepreneur comes up with an app that would allow Californians to automatically block online entreaties from convicted sex offenders."

Hope said "tech entrepreneur" also comes up with a way to incentivize these sex offenders to fall in line and register their user names with the super efficient government agency in charge. Maybe some coupons?

Seriously though, did the SF Chronicle editors even read it back to themselves before posting?

So can they catch them if they don't report their new online account, because they can see them online under an assumed name and they already know who they are, but they want them to report it anyway? What? How do they plan to enforce such a thing? "We know it was you even though you didn't report it, but we need you to report it, so we know it is you?" Are you kidding me?

Either they can already monitor them by some other means, or they have no way of knowing whether they are reporting their online account names. It is utterly pointless.

What better way to ensure a complete rehabilitation of an offender than by truncating every conceivable right they could ever have and marginalizing them to the furthest outskirts of society? Can't really see a way for this one to backfire.

How much responsibility does the government have to perform this?

Edit:To clarify for the negative votes how much should the government intervene into ones psyche to rehabilitate and to what degree should they pursue this goal with every criminal? ( Ars should allow for comments further comments like www.quora.com )

1. Knowledge is Power. We do need to educate people on how to be safe online. A lot of kids out there think that the internet is this perfectly safe playground where nobody can hurt them. Unfortunately, these kids can be doxed and exploited without even having to meet them in in real life. We need to start an initiative on showing kids how to safely interact online, and empower parents with the knowledge and tools to protect their kids.

2. The judicial system isn't perfect. There are cases where someone could be wrongly convicted of a sex crime. It also doesn't help that trial-by-media ensues, and people get emotionally involved in cases involving sex crimes which can adversely ruin what would be a fair trial (Californians could lose their right to anonymous speech merely by appearing on the next Nancy Grace).

This could be very dangerous. Turning over any online screen name would mean even the ones they use for their bank accounts, stocks, and other sensitive information.

And if this expands to other groups and then eventually everyone, it would be very scary.

The big problem here is there will be lots of voters thinking who cares about sex offenders, and not thinking about how this could be abused or eventually expanded to other groups of people.

Sadly this isn't a new concept though Wisconsin has had similar requirements in place for a couple of years now. At one point I recall it was even asking for passwords alongside usernames and it was *ALL* online accounts including the account types you said. I don't know if that's true or not still as I'm no longer in contact with anyone still on the registry.

In the early 90s, I saw a thing on 20/20 about people who were wrongly convicted of sex offenses. There was a really nice old grandpa type who was accused by a little girl of having a really elaborate set of kinky sexual machinery in his basement, and of using it on her, the show didn't elaborate on the details at all, though (probably couldn't describe them on TV anyway), but they did make a point of mentioning that some of the descriptions she gave of what happened with the apparatus defied the laws of physics. For instance, apparently at one point she had described her body being inserted into a space where, in fact, it was not physically possible for her body to fit. They also said that all of it was the sort of crazy but kinky stuff that ONLY a child would ever dream up.

At the time of the trial, there was also NO machinery of that sort down in his basement, and a careful examination of the place by experts had shown that not only was there NO evidence of large machinery having been moved in or out of the place, that in fact the place hadn't been disturbed (i.e. the stuff that was in there then had not moved around) in probably decades.

And remember, some of the stuff supposedly there defied the laws of physics... but at the time, there was this naive belief that "children wouldn't make up something like that, they're totally innocent!" ...so, the the jurors believed all her claims completely, and convicted him of the crime, and so his name was placed onto the sex offenders list for the rest of his life, even though he had never done anything at all.

So, yeah, in addition to the people placed onto the sex offenders list for dubious stuff like peeing out windows when drunk, there's miscarriages of justice like the above. This is why I am totally against people losing certain everyday privileges and rights due to merely being on a so called sexual offenders list. In fact, this is one of those OVER MY DEAD BODY things.

Edited to add: If this thing gets passed, we need to do everything in our power to get it declared unconstitutional.

sex offenders, whether suspected, alleged, or convicted, are already subject to all sorts of hell by their peers and the legal system. i don't see how piling on more laws to punish these people will help the situation.

Some statistics regarding sex trafficking, 0,054 cases per 100.000 citizens in Sweden, 0,051 in Germany, 0,039 in UK. I don't have the number available for the US but it's even lower than the numbers mentioned.

Passing laws that conflicts with the human rights and freedom of expression based on a crimes that barley occurs is very wrong...

Read the whole thing, it will disturb you more than you can possibly imagine, and not for the reasons you'd first expect.

That was an interesting article. He mentions several absurd results of censorship laws, but the most persuasive was that they make it very difficult to prosecute anyone for sexually abusing children, because possession of evidence of sexual abuse of children counts as possession of child pornography; he cites several cases in which someone presenting evidence to the police received more severe punishment than the actual abuser.

I do feel for the governments in these areas because if they do one thing they fail in another, and then there is always one offender that falls though the gaps, or one that gets wrongly convicted and then its the governments fault.

i think false accusations should be prosecuted with the same level standards as the offence been levelled at the proved innocent party. Also the trial by the press should be clamped down on, no names on either side till the trial is over.

I would like to know why Americans are so strictly against prostitution. It's legal in the Netherlands, it's legal in Germany. And it's not like you see prostitutes around every corner. Nor are our societies completely degraded, where every man runs to a prostitute when he can't get laid.

If there's anything everyone can agree about, it's that sexual exploitation of minors is wrong.

Actually there's a fairly large group of people who can and do argue that it's not only not wrong, but it's the most natural thing in the world.

The free speech rights of these people absolutely must be protected so that society can periodically have its face shoved in the existence of people who think like that.

That's quite a nice straw man you're priming here, most of the people you're designating just disagree on the legislator's definition of "sexual exploitation" and/or "minor"; While some do go slightly overboard, most are only pointing out how ridiculous, over-protective and out of touch with the reality of children and teenagers' lives (and biological/physiological, as well as historical realities in some cases) the protection of minors' legislations have become.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.